The Illinois Supreme Court will return to Springfield Tuesday for their two-week September session. The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in 12 cases over the period. 

The first case, People of the State of Illinois v. Geoffrey P. Seymore, asks the court to weigh in on whether good-conduct credit can be used to reduce jail -time earned by violating the conditions of a pretrial release agreement. The state is also questioning whether the appellate court had jurisdiction in the case.  

The defendant, Seymore, was charged with a number of crimes related to drug possession and manufacturing. The prosecutors petitioned to have the defendant remain in prison while awaiting his trial, but the circuit court denied the petition and the defendant was released on electronic home monitoring.  

Seymore broke the conditions of his release the next day by leaving his home.  

The prosecutors asked for a sanction over this violation. The circuit court found that the defendant knowingly violated the conditions of his pretrial release. He was given 30 days in jail as a result, with the court ruling that good-conduct credit would not apply in the case.  

The defense motioned for relief of that good-conduct credit ruling but was denied. Seymore appealed the decision to the appellate court.  

The appellate court ultimately ruled that the circuit court had erred in their decision not to allow good-conduct credit to apply. The defendant had already served his 30 days at that point, but the court still ruled in the case because it was in the public’s interest.  

Along with arguing the appellate court lacked jurisdiction in the case, the state is asking the Illinois Supreme Court to rule that good-conduct credits do not apply in this instance, a decision that would be applied statewide.   

The defendant is arguing that good-conduct credits do apply under the County Jail Good Behavior Allowance Act because the act does not explicitly exempt time served for a pretrial release violation. They also argue that a sanction is considered a sentence under common law and therefore would qualify.  

The court will also hear four conviction appeals in which the defendant alleges an error occurred in the trial process.   

The court will hear arguments in the People of the State of Illinois v. Courtney B. Vesey.   

The defendant was charged and convicted for aggravated battery for an altercation with two police officers in which he shoved one officer's arm away and wrapped his arms around the second officer's neck.  

According to the defendant's briefing, the officers had responded to a call for a wellness check of Vesey, who was suspected of having a mental health crisis while caring for his daughter. The officers approached Vesey, who denied having the crisis, at the park and after he shoved one officer's arm, the second allegedly “tackled” Vesey without telling him he was under arrest or being detained. The defendant's brief says Vesey then put his arms around the officer's neck.  

Vesey was found guilty for one count of aggravated battery for wrapping his arms around the officer’s neck. Vesey claimed self-defense in the case, and the defense had asked the jury in the case be read instructions regarding self-defense but was denied.  

The defendant is asking the court to rule that the jury should be ready self-defense instructions in cases in which self-defense against excessive force by a police officer is alleged. The state disagrees, saying the defense failed to establish that Vesey’s actions were necessary for self-defense.  

The court is also asked to weigh in on a case asking if a petitioner for a Certificate of Innocence can be awarded the certificate after their death.  

According to the briefs, the petitioner, Gregory Dobbins, had been falsely convicted of drug possession charges as part of Chicago Police Sergeant and now-convicted felon Ronald Watts’s corruption scandal. Dobbins was later exonerated of the charges and petitioned for a Certificate of Innocence along with other falsely convicted individuals.  

The court had granted the certificates to the petitioners without requiring any additional evidence, but Dobbins had died just days before the hearing. His partner, who had been made administrator of Dobbins estate, had moved to substitute as the petitioner on Dobbin’s behalf but was denied.  

The circuit court ruled, and the appellate court affirmed, that Dobbins' petition did not survive his death.  

The court is asked to rule that a Certificate of Innocence petition should be allowed after the petitioner's death, an ask the state disagrees with.  

The state argues Certificates of Innocence do not survive the petitioner. They argue this is included in the Survival Act, passed the General Assembly, and therefore is in statute.   

The court will also hear two appeals regarding benefits from the Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago.  

The court will also be asked to weigh in on whether the Kankakee School District is responsible for a student’s injury caused by a gym class incident. The student had been injured by a fellow student, with the plaintiffs alleging that the gym teacher had not been properly supervising kids and the school had failed to tell the teacher of the fellow students' disciplinary record.   

The court has also been asked to weigh in on a question of jurisdiction in a case involving Walgreens and a case questioning if computer passwords and electronic information can be the basis for a conversion claim. Conversion claims are civil lawsuits over withheld property.  

The court’s full docket can be found on their website, where the proceedings will also be livestreamed.